SOMA 2008

Proceedings of the XII Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology,

Eastern Mediterranean University, Famagusta, North Cyprus, 5-8 March 2008

Edited by

Hakan Oniz

BAR International Series 1909 2009

This title published by Archaeopress Publishers of British Archaeological Reports Gordon House 276 Banbury Road Oxford OX2 7ED England bar@archaeopress.com www.archaeopress.com BAR S1909 SOMA 2008: Proceedings of the XII Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology, Famagusta, North Cyprus, 5-8 March 2008 © the individual authors 2009 ISBN 978 1 4073 0392 5 Printed in England by CMP (UK) Ltd All BAR titles are available from: Hadrian Books Ltd 122 Banbury Road Oxford OX2 7BP England bar@hadrianbooks.co.uk The current BAR catalogue with details of all titles in print, prices and means of payment is available free from Hadrian Books or may be downloaded from www.archaeopress.com

183

Preliminary report on the Harbour Basilica, or the Great Basilica in the Ancient City of Olympos

Zeliha Demirel Gokalp and Sener Yildirim

Anadolu University, Eskişehir, Turkey, Department of History of Art Anadolu University, Eskişehir, Turkey, Graduate School of Social Sciences

The ancient city of Olympos is situated 80 km. south of Antalya, where the Toros Mountains descend most steeply to the coast (Fig.1). The rivers in this region have created deep valleys. The city of Olympos is located inside the deep valley created by the Akçay or Olympos creek which cradles the entire city and merges with the sea. Thus the Olympos creek splits the city through the middle, as it remains today. Olympos in History The ancient city of Olympos is located in the southwest of Anatolia, in the region known in ancient sources as Lycia. Until recent times, any evidence of the historical origins of Lycia dating earlier than coins belonging to the Lycian League1 and the port wall, dating from the hellenistic period, has proved elusive. The discovery, however, of settlements known to the locals as ‘the lost town’ on Mount Musa, has given rise to new suggestions concerning the founding date and history of Olympos2. On the basis of the information to hand, it can be assumed that in the Hellenistic period the settlements on Mount Musa had a connection with Olympos, whilst lower Olympos must have been used as its harbour. In the age of the Roman Empire, Olympos became an important member of the Lycian League.3 According to Strabo (quoting from Artemidoros), Olympos was one of the six cities in the Lycian League with three votes, and represented East Lycia there (Strabo 14.6665). Christianty reached the city quite early. The first known bishops of the city was Methodios, who was executed during the reign of the Emperor Diocletian. According to Orthodox tradition, the first bishop of Olympos and the Lycia region was acknowledged to serve first Olympos, and then the cities of Patara. According to recent studies, however, Methodios was not the bishop of Patara, and was known solely as the bishop of Olympos.4 There remains little information about Olympos after the sixth century AD, due in large part to the onslaught of the Arab hoards who were becoming prominent in the Mediterranean regions during the seventh century.

1 For League coins of Olympos see Troxell 1982: 30ao.; Aulock 1977: 33-34; Behrwald 2000: 107ao. 2 see Diler 1991: 161-175 3 Parman and Olcay Uçkan 2006: 28-38. 4 Buchheit 1962: 369; Harrison 1963: 119. A bishop known by name Aristocritus attended councils in Ephesus (431 AD) and Constantinople (451 AD) and in the years 457-458, Anatolius represented Olympos in the Constantinople council. Ioannes was another known bishop of Olympos, who attended the Constantinople Synod in 536, see Parman and Olcay Uçkan 2006: 38-39; Hellenkemper and Hild 2004: 758.

Subject to invasion, as they were, by Venetian, Genoan and Rhodian knights during the Crusades, there is likely to have been some settlement within the defensive structures on the Acropolis (Fig.2) and Ceneviz Hill on its southern slopes, as well as in the city itself. In the fifteenth century, during the reign of Mehmet the Conqueror, Olympos became part of Ottoman territory, along with the whole of the Teke peninsula. Excavations and Investigations in Olympos The first traveller to take an interest in Olympos in the 19th century was Captain Francis Beaufort, who mentions the place in his work entitled Karamania.5 Cramer writes of Chimaera, now known as Yanartaş6. Charles Fellows visited the town in 1838 and 18407, in 1862 Charles Texier and in 1865 Charles Thomas Newton all mention Olympos in their writting8. In the late nineteenth century, Kalinka took copies of inscriptions, many from these tombs.9 In 1968 George Bean wrote in detail about the ruins and the date of foundation and in 1982 Cevdet Bayburtluoğlu described some of the structures.10 The first excavation work in Olympos was undertaken in 1990 by the Museum of Antalya. In 1991, excavations on the monumental tombs at the harbour11 and ‘Building with Mosaic’ was investigated in 1992.12 Ground survey begun in 1999, aiming to ascertain the town plan and to identify settlement structures from different periods in its surrounds. To this end clean-up and measuring operations were conducted in 1990-1992. This work, begun largely in the year 2000, continued until 2004 and was concluded with a topographic plan of the Hellenistic-era walls situated at the skirts of Mount Musa, which constitute part of its borders.13 The study resulted in an inventory of the entire known structures belonging to the town plan, and a topographic plan

5 Beaufort 1817: 35-55. 6 Cramer 1832: 257. 7 Fellows 1994: 164-165. 8 Texier 1862: 697; Newton 1865: 344-345. 9 Kalinka 1901, 1920, 1930, 1944. 10 see Bean 1997; Bayburtluoğlu 1982: 17-18. 11 Atila 1992: 105-128. 12 Atvur 1999: 13-24. 13 Olcay 2001: 353-360; Parman 2002: 1137-144; Parman 2003: 1139-152; Olcay Uçkan and Mergen 2006: 125-132; Olcay Uçkan and Uğurlu 2007: 123-134. Survey and excavation have been continuing in Olympos since 2005 by B. Yelda Olcay Uçkan. By the way we would like to thank her, in spite of especially for her permission to study this building.

SOMA 2008

184

grafted onto a satellite photograph, to show the present condition of the site in its entirety (Fig.3). These studies, apart from the data on the Olympos of the Ancient Era, bring to light data documenting the invasion incurred in the Late and Middle Ages. Considering broadly the plan of the town, one notices a pattern somewhat rare in ancient towns (Fig.4). The main feature of this pattern is the fact of the Olympos Creek running through its middle. On this basis one can make a distinction between the north and south parts of the town. The south of the city contains largely Roman structures. Judging from their architectural style and dimensions, the theatre, baths and harbour basilica may be assumed to have been buildings of considerable status. It has also been ascertained that religious and related public and state buildings of the Middle Ages are concentrated in the north town. The stone-slab street parallel to the creek may be identified as based on a model of covered and walled structural complexes. This complex, which is largely well preserved and, surrounded by high walls, apparently intended for security and in all probability beginning in Late Ancient era (Fig.5), constitutes about a quarter of the town’s area and appears as its most notable element. The Great Basilica Shown in the town plan as the Great Basilica in earlier publications14, it was built on a slope of north-south orientation in the south of the town at the foot of Mount Musa (Fig.4) A three nave basilica is located south of a trapezoid area with partly extant walls and a supplementary section hosting a chapel with atrium extends north of the mentioned area. (Fig.6) As the edifice is located within the walls of a trapezoid area, wall lengths and accordingly nave lengths of the church are not equal to one another (Fig.7) Owing to the very same reason, the apse faces southeast. The naos is divided into three naves with two rows of eight columns placed on the stylobate. The apse, located in the middle nave axis with a width of 11.00 m. is semicircular in plan both on the inside and outside. The apse is made up of large hewn stone blocks which are spolia. There are four vaulted windows in the apse. Holes seen in the inner surface of the apse suggest that it was coated with marble when it was in use. Southern nave is approximately 5.60 m. in width and in its north lies a pastophorion attached with a door (Fig.7). You can enter the naos through doors each located in nave axes in the west. One of these doors opening up to southern nave is a vaulted door. Though it has not been possible to discover totally the door opening up to the middle nave because of intense rubber and plant cover, ruins of the Roman period architrave pieces suggest that it is a larger and more flat door space. You can enter the northern nave through doors on the eastern and western walls.

14 Bayburtluoğlu 1982: 17: Olcay 2004: 354.

The supplementary section located north of the church is attached via two doors existent east and west of the northern wall. The eastern door opens up to the quasi-square planned place. East of the place with no definite function defined so far there lies a small apse semicircular in plan on the outside and trikonchios in plan on the inside, built through demolishing the wall. There is a window covered later on in the middle of the apse and a clay tile under the window (Fig.8). A piece of wall in the middle of the apse is thought to pertain to the wall blown down in the construction of the apse. Apart from the southern entrance, which establishes the connection between said place and the church, a door placed on the northern wall across this entrance opens up to the road in the north (Fig.7). According to present data, another door in the nave axis would open up to the atrium in the west. Data relevant to structural and coating systems of the place have not been detected yet. The atrium located west of the place is attached to the church through the door placed west of the northern wall. A large vaunted entrance in the middle of the northern wall establishes its connection with the street. Said entrance must be the main entrance of the place constituted by surrounding walls. Atrium is seen to be encircled by a portico with a column. The second phase of the structure consists of a series of changes introduced in the northern supplementary place and a resulting narrowing in the northern nave of the church (Fig.9). In this period, a chapel quasi-square in plan was constructed in the northern supplementary place. East of it, there is an apse semicircular in plan both on the inside and outside. A piece of wall in front of the apse and in the south suggests that holding pillars support the chapel thought to be constructed in three nave basilical plan. There is a pastophorion east of the northern nave. During the construction of the chapel, it is concluded that the northern wall of the church was drawn towards the south so as to align with the door in the east and as a result, the northern nave got narrower. A corridor was established between eastern and northern walls of the chapel and the surrounding wall. It is understood that the holding pillar in the middle of the trikonchios apse was attached to the north-eastern wall of the chapel with a vault in this period. A wall piece standing south of the apse and directed towards east may mark the presence of a door providing southern access to the corridor. Eastern and western entrances of the northern nave in the 1st phase together with eastern and western entrances of the southern nave of the chapel in the second phase must have established a second corridor extending through the southern nave of the chapel. Eastern and southern walls of the quadrilateral place built within the church seem to have been constructed with three rows of bricks and debris using alternate technique. However, since southern walls are lower, it is difficult to apply this technique at higher levels. The door placed east of the southern nave is brick bonded and brick vaunted. The northern wall, on the other hand, is completely

PRELIMINARY REPORT ON THE HARBOUR BASILICA, OR THE GREAT BASILICA IN THE ANCIENT CITY OF OLYMPOS

185

rubble bonded and there are some bricks placed irregularly among rubbles. In spite of the difference in materials and techniques of the two walls, lack of dilatation in the north-western corner where the twosome are connected to each other suggests that they may have been built together. All columns used in the building are granite and spolia (Fig.10). Corinthian column capitals made of limestone pertain to the Roman period (2nd-3rd centuries) and they are again spolia (Fig.11). The materials of the apse made of very large hewn stone blocks must have bee supplied from the Roman period Bath located in its east (Fig.12). Scarcity of rubble in the naos and other architectural data show that the church is a three nave, wooden roofed basilica. The intense rubble cement in the apse must pertain to the half dome of the apse. Apse’s being directed towards southeast having ran off the axis results from the angular construction of the eastern wall (Fig.13). In addition, differences in nave length are due to trapezoid shape of the surrounding wall. Lack of a narthex or an atrium located west of the church results from the fact that Roman period buildings in the west of the surrounding wall stand very close to each other so as to form a narrow street.

However, it is difficult to expect a design that could impair ratios and the form in such a monumental church built from the rough. This is why we think that the church was constructed using walls of a previously existing building.15

The most significant element supporting our view lies in the material technique of the wall (Fig.14-15). The alternate technique present in the eastern wall is solely seen in Great Bath pertaining to the Roman Era and some tomb structures in Olympos. The brick bonded door in the east of the southern nave can not be seen in any other Byzantine period building. This is only encountered in some tombs dated back to the 3rd century and in the Great Bath. The material technique of the grand vault situated in the middle of the northern part of the surrounding wall can be observed in 3rd century tomb structures as well. The street passing by north of the building and reaching the harbour can be an evidence of the fact that the main entrance of the place is in the north. A grand lento detected close to this entrance and thought to be suitable for this space thanks to its dimensions suggests an implementation similar to that in Side.16 As we have not completed our studies yet, we do not know the function of this building in the Roman Period. As the church was totally constructed on the Roman structure and about all the materials are spolia, we think that it is the earliest dated church in the city. However,

15 There are examples to various Roman buildings, in particular pagan temples transformed partly or totally into churches in the 5-6th centuries. see Ceylan 2001:189-201., D’Andria 2003: fig. 36, 157. 16 Mansel 1978, fig. 13.

there are not adequate data collected to provide a more sound dating suggestion. Nonetheless, having regard to the historical process of the city, we can suggest the 5th century for the first phase. The function of the place with a trikonchios apse in the north is not certain yet. The hole in the middle of the apse with a clay water pipe in can be associated with water (Fig.8). Even after changes introduced in the north of the church, it is concluded that the northern supplementary place and the church were utilized together.17 We can suggest the 5-6th centuries for the second phase (Fig.9). Bibliography Atila İ. Akan (1992) “Olympos Mezar Odası Kurtarma

Kazısı”, II. Müze Kurtarma Kazıları Semineri, 105-128.

Atvur, O. (1999) Olympos Antik Kenti (1991-1992 Çalışmaları). Arkeoloji ve Sanat, 88, 13-31.

Bayburtluoğlu, Cevdet (1982) Likya, Ankara. Beaufort, F. R. (1817) Karamania or a Brief Description

of the South Coast ao Asia Minor, 35-55. Bean, George (1997) Ancient Lycia. Behrwald, R. (2000) Der Lykische Bund.

Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Verfassung, 1, Bonn.

Buchheit, V. (1962) “Methodios”, Lexikon für Theologie

und Kirche, 7, 369. Ceylan, B. (2001) Geç Antik Dönem Batı Anadolu

Bazilikaları, OLBA IV, (Ed. S. Durugönül-M. Durukan) Mersin, Mersin Üniversitesi Kilikia Arkeolojisini Araştırma Merkezi.

Cramer, J. A. (1832) Geographical and Historical

Description of Asia Minor, II, 257-261. D’Andria, F. (2003) Hierapolis (Pamukkale), İzmir, Ege

Yayınları. Diler, A. (1991) “Lykia Olympos Dağında Bir Ön

Araştırma”, Türk Arkeoloji Dergisi, 29, 161-175. Fellows, C. (1994) Travels of Discovery in Turkey, 164-

165. Grossmann, S. and Severin, H. G. (2003) Frühchristliche

und Byzantinische Bauten im Südöstlichen Lykien, Tübingen.

Harrison, R. M. (1963) “Churches and Chapels of Central Lycia”, Anatolian Studies, 13, 117-151.

Harrison, M. (2001) Mountain and Plain; From the

Lycian Coast to the Phrygian Plateau in the Late

Roman and Early Byzantine Period.

Hellenkemper, H. and F. Hild (2004) Tabula Imperii

Byzantini 8, Lykien und Pamphylien.Wien, Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

17 The function of the place has not been certain yet. However, it is know that examples of baptistery northern of the churches in Lycia. For Karabel and Alacahisar see Harrison 2001; Grossmann and Severin 2003.

SOMA 2008

186

Kalinka, E. (1901,1920,1930,1944) Tituli Asie Minoris.

Volumen 1: Tituli Lyciae Lingua Conscripti, Wien; Tituli Asie Minoris Volumen II: Tituli Lyciae Graeca

et Latina conscripti, Wien; Tituli Asie Minoris

Volumen II: Tituli Lyciae Graeca Latina consciripti, Fas.II, Wien; Tituli Asie Minoris Volumen II: Tituli

Lyciae Graeca et Latina consciripti, Fas.II, Wien. Mansel, A. M. (1978) Side, 1947-1966 Yılları Kazıları ve

Araştırmaları Sonuçları, Ankara, Türk Tarih Kurumu. Newton, C. T. (1865) Travels and Discoveries in the

Levant, I. Olcay Uçkan, B. Y. (2001) Olympos’da Geç Antik Çağ

ve Bizans Dönemine Ait Bulgular, Olcay Uçkan, B. Y. and E. Uğurlu (et.all) (2007) “2005

Yılı Olympos Yüzey Araştırması”, 24. Araştırma

Sonuçları Toplantısı, Vol.2, 123-134. Parman, Ebru (2002) “Antalya Olympos ve Çevresi (Geç

antik – Ortaçağ) Yüzey Araştırmaları 2000 Yılı Çalışma Raporu”, 19.

Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, vol.1, 1137-144.

Parman, Ebru ( 2003) “Antalya Olympos ve Çevresi (Geç antik – Ortaçağ) Yüzey Araştırmaları 2001 Yılı Çalışma Raporu”, 20 . Araştırma Sonuçları

Toplantısı, vol.1, 1139-152. V.Ortaçağ ve Türk Dönemi Kazı ve Araştırmaları

Sempozyumu, 353-360. Olcay Uçkan, B. Y. and Y. Mergen and E. Uğurlu (2006)

Olympos Antik Kenti 2005 Yılı Yüzey Araştırması. ANMED Anadolu Akdenizi Arkeoloji Haberleri, 4,125-132

Parman, E. and Y. Olcay Uçkan (et. al) (2006) Lykia’da

Bir Korsan Kenti Olympos. İstanbul, Homer Kitabevi. Texier, C. (1862) Asie Mineure. Troxell, H. A. (1982) The Coinage of the Lycian League,

New York. Von Aulock, H. (1977) Münzen und Städte Pisidiens, 2

vols., Tübingen. E-Mails: zdgokalp@anadolu.edu.tr seneryildirim@hotmail.com

Fig.1(Hellenkemper and Hild 2004)

Fig.2. Northern Castle (Acropolis Hill) Fig.3. Olympos satellite photograph and city plan

PRELIMINARY REPORT ON THE HARBOUR BASILICA, OR THE GREAT BASILICA IN THE ANCIENT CITY OF OLYMPOS

187

Fig.4. Olympos City Plan

Fig.5. North Town, Medieval Wall

Fig. 6. Great Basilica Plan Fig.7. Great Basilica First Phase

SOMA 2008

188

Fig.8. Trikonchios Apse, Exterior Fig.9. Great Basilica Second Phase

Fig.10.Great Basilica, Columns Fig.11. Great Basilica, Fig.12. Great Basilica, Apse Column Capital

Fig.13. Roman Phase

PRELIMINARY REPORT ON THE HARBOUR BASILICA, OR THE GREAT BASILICA IN THE ANCIENT CITY OF OLYMPOS

189

Fig.14. Supplementary Building, Exterior

Fig.15. Great Bath